Why I Should Not Have to Write Another Letter to the Bishop
Lots of comments on my Bishop Comes to Visit post, including some from Mormons that I consider very cordial and kind. That’s unusual. Usually, I am getting the hate comments and the way-whack-out-of-control comments from people like Wayne, who implied that once you decide you don’t want the bishop knocking on your door, you are actually planning violent acts against all Mormons
Yeah, that’s right. Or Johnny, who said that you have to understand Wayne’s reaction, because, after all, Mormons are persecuted more than other religions. (Johnny later clarified his comment, thank goodness, because up until that point, he seemed pretty rational.)
Megan was very rational, and she told me to take a moment and write the letter, but you know, here is why I don’t think I should.
1. I already WROTE the letter. I had to go through a LOT of hoops to get that done. I had to call Gregory Dodge, because my bishop ignored all my calls. He finally got through to the bishop, who accepted the letter. A few weeks later, both my husband and I got the letter confirming our names had been removed. I did it once. WHY should I have to do it again, especially when the first time was so difficult?
2. After our entire family ended up BACK on the roster, and I in fact ended up there twice, I realized they don’t EVER really take your name off. They just move you to a different file. So WHY should I bother to write another letter? Odds are, I’ll end up back in the wrong file again.
3. When Bishop S. appeared at our door, after my husband called his house and told the bish’s wife that he was pretty peeved that we were on the ward directory, he was DIRECTLY defying the “do not contact” order I had told the last bishop to put in place AFTER WE ENDED UP BACK ON THE WARD LIST. That got lost somewhere, TOO!!! If you cannot write a letter and have your name removed, what is the point of writing another letter complaining that you already wrote the letter and had the official church letter to prove it? What is the point of all this letter-writing, when in fact I have BOOKS to write and deadlines to meet, and I have no time to waste FIGHTING these people off anymore.
4. Johnny asks what is wrong with someone stopping by to see how you are? GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK, Johnny. Bishop S’s first words were, “I’m your bishop, and I’m here to see if I can help you with the troubles with the Church that are bothering you.” He doesn’t give SQUAT about my arthritis and carpal tunnel, or the fact that my husband has a bad back. It’s about THE CHURCH, baby. They aren’t stopping by to visit. I have friends that do that. He is not my friend. His first words prove that. Don’t try to play that card, it ain’t working. IT ALWAYS goes back to the church. This man does not care about me. He does not even KNOW who I am. Well, he didn’t. Now he does.
5. I have told the LDS Church in no uncertain terms that I have no wish to be a member. They have BLATANTLY disregarded me. They do not care. They will dog me as long as I wish. Thus, I will dog them in return.
C’est la vie.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Thinking back on discrete signs by your door… I wonder how wise if would be to have a sign saying, “If you are a Mormon, be advised that I’m not, so do yourself a favor and turn around, and never come back.”
July 31st, 2007 at 9:31 pm
I was wondering, Natalie, if you still have the letter confirming that you were taken off the church rolls. If you do, maybe it would be worth it to make a few copies of it and then whenever someone from the church knocks on your door, just hand them a copy, say “This confirms that I am not a member of your church,” and then politely and firmly close the door.
I agree with you, though, that you shouldn’t have to write another letter. Of course, I don’t think anyone should have to write a letter, essentially asking permission to
quit, in the first place. Just me, I guess.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:05 pm
I agree, you shouldn’t have to write another letter. They screwed up, not you. You shouldn’t have to keep jumping through their hoops in order to fix their screw up.
I used to let the visiting teachers come by in the spirit of being neighborly, but frankly I’ve gotten to the point where I’m tired of all the fake friendliness. Someone doesn’t give me the time of day, then I get assigned to them and all of a sudden they are all friendly toward me and acting like they want to be my friend. And everything seems fine until there is a rotation. Once I’m not assigned to them anymore, they immediately go back to ignoring me like I’m a total stranger. It’s like night and day. So obviously the whole friendliness and pretending to want to be my friend was just an act. And no, I don’t say anything negative about the church to them. Most of them don’t ask why I’m inactive, the few who do I just tell them that organized religion is really not my thing but that I’m all for being neighborly and just leave it at that.
If it was just a few people who have done this, I wouldn’t say it was common but it’s been everyone in every ward I’ve lived in for the past 17 years except for one really nice and sincere lady. I’m to the point where I don’t even want to let anyone from the ward come by anymore because I’m tired of the whole fake friendship thing - I don’t have time for all that. I’d rather spend my time with people who genuinely want to be my friend.
So I can understand why you want no contact. Because you’re right, I think. It’s never really about being friendly or neighborly - it’s always about the church - you’re just someone’s service project as opposed to someone wanting to form a real friendship with you. Who has time for all this fake relationship stuff? Not me.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:17 pm
You know what bugs me? The whole, “we love and appreciate you” notes from people who have NEVER even MET you. PLEASE. You don’t even KNOW me, you sure don’t love and appreciate me. Except maybe in a “preciate ya” kinda way.
August 1st, 2007 at 2:30 am
This is one reason I will never “join” a church. Who needs the aggravation.
My grandmother got burnt by the Baptist and it had to do with membership.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:16 am
I believe I never actually said this:
“Johnny asks what is wrong with someone stopping by to see how you are? GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK,”
Just to be clear, I disagree with the churchs’ policy which make name removal difficult. Short story why: back in ‘94 I went to visit this guy on the directory with a 14year as junior companion, I was 29. The guy said that he wasn’t a member, had writen a letter about that and then blew up; he went back to the kitchen and came back with this large butchers knife and a crazy look! We kind of froze for a second but luckily his wife intervened and stopped him. She then spoke to us & I said that if he wrote another letter then I’d make sure it was done this time correctly. I was ward clerk back then. I went back to bishop, told him what happened and gave him the letter. Bishop read it and said: “this doesn’t actually request that his name be removed”!!!!! since the letter said: “I am not a member of the lds church and haven’t being for 15 years”!
Nothing was done with that case -except what I could do which was to add the ‘DO NOT CONTACT” after his address and ‘predisposed to violance agains priesthood/relief society. (I’ll continue in next post)
August 1st, 2007 at 9:47 am
(continued)
this ‘Do Not Contact’ seems to have caught on. I claim it in anecdotal proofs! But it is a solution that local priesthood have come up with due to the intransigence of church HQ. It’s a band aid solution.
You and me, Natalie & almost everyone else here, are really on opposite sides of the fence in beliefs and faith or testimony (but I liked the book) But I empathize and understand your frustrations with ‘name removal’ because it affects us on this side of the fence too! What’s the use of visiting people who don’t want to be visited? none of course, its a waste of time for me too! Today I just don’t bother with the inactives of 10/20 years inactivity, which are about 50% of the ward. But, lol, the address -& ‘do not contact’- is seen on the main membership directory and not on the list they give me for home teaching!!!!
But really if you could take this seriously, enough to make it more that a blog item, take it to SLTrib, petition HQ, file a lawsuit or whatever, then in that you would be on the same side of the fence as most rank & file mormons out there; even that Bishop who thinks he has to visit you to see what’s going on. If I write to HQ my letter is just turned around to the stake president and nothing happens.
If you don’t and never write another letter, or get a petition started, then when this bishop is released (average 3 years for bishop service) the next one could ask himself “who is this” , “she’s a known author, mostly anti-mormon, so should she be ex’ed?” or he just sends a 21year old elder with a teen junior companion to see what’s going on there. Maybe someone does put into your record ‘do not contact’ but them maybe no-one does…………………..Note that before some people in Arizona(I think) filed a suite to get their names removed without being subjected to a church court and being exed, that the whole process changed. That is the people who where askng to have their names removed had church policy changed from church court/excommunication to this ‘administrative process’ of letter written by Bishop & Stake Pres, and then actually done by HQ where name is moved from the membership lists to ex member list (along with the excomunicated!)
August 1st, 2007 at 10:12 am
Everything you need to know about resigning from the church is at this site. Basically once you get conformation that member records received your letter, you’re out! Everything that follows after that is their problem, not yours. By law you are considered resigned as soon as they receive the letter, so if you are sending another letter, don’t send it to your bishop. Send it to member records and make sure to send it priority mail with delivery conformation.
Member Records
50 E North Temple, Room 1372
SLC UT 84150-5310
Good luck!
August 1st, 2007 at 10:31 am
I have my ideas on why the Mormon church won’t leave people alone. And if I were a Mormon/Catholic/Jehovah Witness (I know those are all churchs that excommunicate) I would be very pissed to ask to have my name removed from the church rolls and find out I have to be excommunicated. It boils down to the same reason they baptise the dead. They have to keep those false numbers of enrollment up.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:37 am
Off on a tangent here…
See, I’m a recovering Catholic. I was born to a devout Catholic family, and had all the rituals/milestones at the proper times, etc.
Then, I stopped being a Catholic. I didn’t need to notify anyone, I didn’t need to have a record showing that I wanted “out,” and I didn’t need to behave outrageously by anyone’s reckoning in order to stop being a Catholic. All I needed to do was stop attending church.
Now, I have no knowledge of how this is for other religions, and I definitely welcome enlightening but it *does* seem to me that there is a cult-ish component to having to jump through hoops in order to “quit” a church.
I mean, if I am under contract somewhere, and want out, I get that there are requirements for both parties, and that those have to be set down clearly–in writing–at the moment of signing said contract. Everything spelled out, even if it’s small print. And if something is not clearly spelled out, there’s basis for legal action.
Belonging to a church, as far as I know, it’s NOT a contract, not in the legal sense, at least. Unless you are signing your life to it, or some such, in which case… I call cult.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Great points, Azteclady. I believe the SL Trib articles from 2-3 years ago about the misleading LDS membership numbers addressed the issue that with most christian churches, their reported membership numbers are of their active membership only. In most churches, if you stop attending, the churches will take you off their rolls themselves after 1-3 years. I think the articles mentioned that the Catholics don’t do this, they keep inactives on their rolls, but they don’t chase you down wherever you move to and try to reactivate you.
It does seem rather cultish to make it so difficult for people to leave the religion and to get their names off the rolls. My close friend told me last year that now if someone asks to have their name removed, the church will notify all of their LDS relatives of the request and ask them to intervene and try to get the person to reconsider. I told this friend if that is true, it sounds like a major invasion of privacy issue.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:39 pm
This is more for Johnny, if he’s still here. The SL Trib has done some article series about the inflated LDS membership numbers and how difficult it is for people to get their names off the membership rolls. From what I’ve read from various sources - it is much easier to get your name off the LDS rolls if you live outside of Utah. In Utah the church knows it doesn’t have to worry about losing lawsuits because they hae so much political clout here, and in my opinion they take advantage of their political clout and act like a bully. I believe Natalie said that she’d gone to see a lawyer about sueing the church in regards to her botched name removal and she said the lawyer laughed in her face and told her she’d never get anywhere with a lawsuit filed in Utah.
I think this whole inflating membership numbers and chasing people down and making it hard for them to leave should be a huge red flag for everyone. Why are they so desperate to try and keep people who want to leave and why are they so desperate to make people think there are more real Mormons than there actually are? If they are really so sure they have the “one true thing”, why would they care how many members they have? If they were really as confident about their claims of truthfulness and revelation as they try to project that they are, they wouldn’t be so concerned about trying to make people think their church has more real members than it actually does and they wouldn’t be so desperate to try and keep people from leaving.
August 1st, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Hey, if I sent a removal letter for myself, would it take care of being contacted in advance? Whoops, I forgot, my neighbors and the bishop don’t talk to me…never mind!
Natalie, I feel for you and I agree on the “cult” aspect of the name removal thing. Feels like you’re being watched. My church has never hunted me down when I move…they kinda wait for me to make the first move. Yeah.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:24 pm
The ‘cult’ accusations are way off, because, as I’ve tried to point out, this name removal business is as much a pain in the butt to the rank & file (98%) as it is to the person asking for it.
But because names aren’t removed it’s the next new guy who doesn’t know the story that will show up asking years latter -not the fault of the new 20something year old bishop but the fault of the hierarchy and the way they make things difficult. This is why writing another letter or writing to “Membership Records” is a better option for you guys rather than just blogging it -you will save yourself another bishop visit 10 years from now!
And also, the rank&file know that there are more inactives never to be seen again mormons out there than active temple going tith paying members. But the general authorities keep claiming that 13 million. Off course reality is different. We all know that the numbers are inflated, but it’s wrong to say that we ‘chase people down’ or force them to say. If they leave, everyone lets them leave; but then 6 years later or 10years latter a new guy will ask “who’s this on the membership directory?” and goes to see -not to chase you down but out of just not knowing what happened years before. But I’ve done my bit, all I can do, by adding do not contact; now you guys could do you bit by getting a petition started or getting the media involved??????
Oh, and INTJ Mom: the contacting relatives is a myth; quite to the contrary relatives are never given details about name removals (unless it’s verbal passing matter in the corridor from bishop to the relative.)
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:58 am
Johnny, I beg to disagree.
You and many like you (rank and file, as you say) may be reasonable people for the most part, but the structure of the church *IS* cult-like. Once you are in, the church–wherever and whoever in HQ–makes it nigh impossible for you to leave… in paper.
Which means, new bishop sees name, and the whole thing starts all over again.
And again…
And again…
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:53 am
Interesting how all the Mormons commenting think I need to write another letter. What makes you think THIS letter will be any different than the LAST letter? I even called member services back then. Spoke with Greg Dodge. Nice man, but obviously ineffective.
See, THEY DON’T REMOVE YOUR NAME. THEY JUST MARK IT DIFFERENTLY. That’s why we ended up back on. A removal should be a complete removal, and in the LDS church IT IS NOT.
I do still have the old letter, somewhere. Will probably have to dig it out.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:24 am
This is all a little upsetting to me. My family and I just had our names removed after calling and all most begging to get it done. It took about 4 months for it to happen, I thought that after 30 days. I guess they are getting so many requests a day for name removal they can’t keep up with them. I really hope our names don’t go back on the list. Sure we could have just let it go and just not went to church there any more. What the LDS don’t understand that it’s about freedom, about saying to the church “You have now more authority over me.” If your names are on the list they feel like they can just drop over at your house. If you have your name removal and specifically ask for NO CONTACT, you have a better chance of them leaving you alone, I said better.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:23 pm
A bit off topic again… that site Aramis linked to? Anyone here has any experience with it? Because as a total outsider, it seemed all good, solid information–but hey, what do I know?
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:00 pm
you know i think it is different for different people. I mean, when my dad got excomunicated it was a done deal. he told the bishop flat out that he did not believe it and thought the mormon religon was way off from what the bible said. a few days latter we got a letter saying that his trail for excomunication was such and such date. a few days after that date we got a letter wish ing my dad luck on his spiritual jurney. we still have contact with my mormon relitives.
however my aunt who lived in maesa at the time had a much ruffer time getting out of the church, and for a long time the family shuned her.
and i must add that if you live in a very mormon area you are more likely to be shuned and have a hard time getting ex-comunicated.
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Hi Natalie,
I stumbled across your blog a couple of days ago and just wanted to say it has me absolutely hooked. Being Scottish, I have had no experience of the Mormon church (although I believe there are some British Mormons) and had no idea just how awful and intrusive the behaviour of the church could be - there seem to be some very scary people involved in the hierarchy.
So glad I’m lucky enough live in a society where church/religion has no influence over what goes on.
Hope you manage to get you and your family’s names removed soon.
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I’ve been re-reading and something just hit me…
Do you NEED to be excommunicated in order to be left alone? Otherwise they just shift the names back and forth from “no contact” to “inactive” and round and round the mulberry bush with it?
Because, if so… yikes!
More apologies to those faithful Mormons who read this but… it’s more and more cult-like in my eyes!
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Straight answer is No; you don’t need to be excommunicated to be left alone. Nor are names just shifted back and forth between lists if things are done properly. That’s a Natalie myth quit frankly!!!
A “Name Removal” requested person won’t be contacted if the procedure is done correctly!!!!! by Bishop & Stake President. If Natalie is back on the membership directory it just says to me that the first Bishop didn’t do the paperwork correctly and HQ rejected the request for incomplete (if it reached them at all).
Ah…, above all, talking to that Greg Dodge or anyone at HQ is pointless -they just email the Stake President involved and inform him in that email that this person request name removal, details,….etc.
HQ won’t do anything until the correct forms at sent to them with the necessary signatures. Maybe because there is some effort involved Bishops tend to just ignore the entire process, as happened to me with the knife yielding nut case back in ‘94; not sure, but I actually DO disagree with what the current status is with all this, as I’ve said before. It should be that via two witnesses a person can have membership cancelled, as D&C requires, and make life easier for us rank&file. But the church doesn’t want to do this, nor trusts home teachers to do this properly apparently.
But if you do: ….”dog me as long as I wish. Thus, I will dog them in return.”…. Fine with me.
But you need to actually DO something, not just write in a blog that no-one in the hierarchy reads, and very few Bishops read!!!! Maybe a petition……….?????
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Oh, and there isn’t a list of “no contact” or “inactives”;
I came up with adding a line to the address lines with “Do Not Contact” as a solution for us in our Ward so home teachers and visiting teachers know who to avoid and not waste time with. This is all the software allows us to do at the Ward level.
But this problem is one that HQ has to solve with a new church wide policy. Problem is that they won’t listen to ward or stake clerks, only some stake presidents in their yearly interview and if there is time to add this to the agenda….etc etc. A public campain by the Trib with a petition is the best way to get them to listen and actually change things eventually. We -rank&file- can’t do much more.
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:42 pm
I’ll chime in here. I was a ward clerk about 3 years ago. In a correlation meeting before church with the Bishop he read a letter from the First Presidency of the Church stating that any member who wants to remove their name from the records of the church should be allowed to without any further delay.
I am 110% positive the letter said this, the bishop read it to me and the other financial clerks, and that it was from the first presidency. Really, no joke, totally serious. So, yeah I would kind of say that the bishop in this situation need to read up on church policy. I’m not a ward clerk anymore, haven’t been for a couple of years, but I really doubt the policy has changed.
And no we did not get a lot of requests for name removal. This was a huge ward I was in, the biggest singles ward in the whole city. And I have never seen any conspiracies to rig the membership numbers and inflate stats.
I do see why Natalie would be upset in this situation if she is being bugged all the time. I would tell the Bishop that there is a letter from the first presidency telling local leaders to remove names from the rolls on request without delay. I know it exists. I don’t think people should go, but it’s definitely their decision.
On another note, have you guys seen the trailer for “September Dawn”? I was at the movies tonight and saw it before the show started. It’s about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. No joke, hollywood is making a movie about this.
I was pretty amazed, it’s like anti-mormonism gone mainstream. It’s sad that so many people died, but I mean come one, 150 years later this still has to be brought up? I was curious about the movie so I cam home and read about it, the director thought it was a good time for a movie like this because of all of the religous fanaticism in the world. He mentioned the Taliban, 9-11, etc. Really comparing the LDS church to some kind of cult that is out to kill people. It’s just nuts, regardless of who you think actually planned the massacre.
I think the public just has problem with religion in general, it’s not really mormonism per se, but anything that expresses a solid belief in ideas that oppose widely held views and claim to be from God.
Here’s my bet, the film will be a total bust. It’s a very sad story, but it’s incredibly boring. It would be very interesting to intellectuals on the basis of whether it’s what it claims to be, and to dissidents who have a bone to pick, but to 99% of the population it’s boring as hell. Maybe they’re trying to play off the interest in the Romney campaign. Still say he will win the republican nomination, there are a lot of weak candidates in the field. What do you guys think?
August 4th, 2007 at 5:59 am
No way that Romney can win, he’s only arond 10%anyway; and hopefully God won’t let the SOB be president.
Let Obama get the job; and fix the up this mess that Bush & cronies created.
On the film, yep its boring and probably won’t be there for long. Anti-mormons though will champeon it as ‘the real story’…..blabla….
August 4th, 2007 at 7:02 am
Hmmm….
I’m awful but can’t resist.
So a massacre that happened 150 years ago should be left alone and never brought up again? Geeeee!!! Those idiots who did 300 should have known this before they “wasted” their time and money making *that* movie! I mean, that’s something like 2500 years ago, who could possibly care?
/sarcasm
Sorry, really couldn’t resist.
August 4th, 2007 at 9:55 am
You ARE a cult. Give me a break. The Mormon’s on this site who make statements, about NOT being a cult are completely unable to make that statement with any credibility. You are on the inside so you have no idea what your “church” looks like from the outside. You have been brainwashed into believing that a shady man who translated gold plates (while his head was in a hat) was a prophet. It’s laughable…..and you believe it. If you could see clearly, you would find this laughable too. But you can’t. What’s funnier is that you believe you are the one true church when you are unable to recognize any kind of truth.
You make statements about how you are so persecuted, yet you “persecute” the rest of the sane world for not believing this wacked out story. Ya’, you guys are right and the rest of history is wrong. Plus, you all are so nasty to your own people that don’t fit into your mold….women who don’t marry, women who don’t marry young and have tons of children, gays/lesbians, people that have a brain and can think on their own, etc. It’s unbelievable that you can continue to complain about how you are treated when you are so nasty to your own.
August 4th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Ummm… the meadow massacure not happening…I am sorry but it is a historical event that clearly happened. and the mormons denying that is like christians trying to say the inquisition or the cursades, or the baptist anti-baptist wars were not conected to the church.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
You guys have some serious problems with english. When did I say the mountain meadows massacre never happened? When did I say anything about being so persecuted? Stupid movies aren’t persecution.
And Sam, I didn’t grow up in the church, so I know perfectly well what the “outside” is, or however you want to define it. You’ll try to define us as a bunch of idiots, but the facts prove you blatantly wrong. Take Romney for example, the guy is very devout, and a believer of his religion, from what I have heard from him. He’s got two graduate degrees from Harvard. I’m sure Harvard just said, well, he’s Mormon, so he must be an imbecile. Let’s let him in anyways, and while were at it, let’s just make sure he passes all of his tests, and we’ll take it easy on the homework too! There are tons of counter examples to your baloney. Did you no the guy who invented the TV was LDS? I mean where would your life be without this guy. Come one Sam, you need to start worshipping the LDS.
Did you know that the leader of the senate (Harry Reid, Democrat)is LDS? The democratic party has a lot of views contrary to what the church teaches. So why doesn’t the church go after this guy, I mean kick him out, come on! If the church is even half as bad as you say it is with people who dissent from its views like you say, this guy would have been gone a long time ago.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
And by the way, Romney is leading in Iowa and New Hampshire. These are two of the earliest primaries. South Carolina is next, and I think he is trailing in this one, but not by a lot. The people who win the early primaries almost always win the election. Go back and look at old voting results if you don’t believe me.
Why he would want the job is beyond me, but it would be great to have him. This country is in such a mess, I don’t know what motivates him to want to deal with it.
August 4th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I have found the safest refuge from the mormons is living with my mormon parents. The last time I let the hometeachers meet me here was almost 10 years ago. I realize that your goal is removal from records and no contact. I wish you luck with this, but if you are in Utah, you might just need to settle for saying no thanks to the hometeachers and missionaries.
I hope they don’t delay the release of this movie. I dare say this massacre was just as big as the Donner party story. And the Donners weren’t deceived into being massacred. It’s about time that the biggest massacre of American western pioneers be known by more than just mormons and anti-mormons. I think it makes huge movie material because it has been such a secret for so long. Amazing how something so big could be swept under the rug until the last 10 years or so.
August 4th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Maybe if Brigham Young had handled it better and tried to make an official apology, reparations, a memorial, ANYTHING! For that reason, I think this movie needs to go BIG!!
August 4th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
“I was pretty amazed, it’s like anti-mormonism gone mainstream. It’s sad that so many people died, but I mean come one, 150 years later this still has to be brought up? ”
This has got to be one of the funniest things I’ve read in a long time. This from the same group that still whines about all their “persecution” from when was that? Oh, right, 150ish years ago? PuHlease!
And Johnny, you are reallly not making any sense to me. If contacting the Bishop isn’t enough, and neither is contacting Greg Dodge, then why bother?
August 5th, 2007 at 7:33 am
Idahoan:
To clear things up (again!!!) contacting the Bishop is your best shot and really only shot at getting your name removed. Greg at HQ will only email your request to the corresponding stake president who then needs to get the bishop to do the first part…..and so on. But reality is that most bishops have too much to do and just don’t do these things (even though they are supposed to) so your chances of getting it done are maybe 20%, I’d guess? And to clarify (again), I don’t want to see anyone on the membership directory who doesn’t want to be there –but they also have to do their bit to get removed eg put the request in writing(& keep a copy incase the first letter goes missing)
If you do nothing, or don’t send a second letter as Natalie should, result is that NOTHING will get done! Then 4, 7 or 20 years later another bishop will check and see what’s going on there, and he will then be wasting he’s time AS WELL as yours!!
And Sam:
for this: “Plus, you all are so nasty to your own people that don’t fit into your mold….women who don’t marry, women who don’t marry young”… there’s the August 07first presidency message addressed to you. You can find it at LDS.org!!!!!! We definitely don’t treat members the way you claim. Also note that current counselor in Relief society -general presidency- is & always has being single. So is Hinkley, Scott, Wirthlin……..Oh, and what’s so bad about translating with one’s head in a hat???????????? A Prophet should be able to handle that, shouldn’t he???????????? Translate in a hat??????????? Since he’s not a professor or scholar but just a religious person! Who’s to say how people interpret a religious belief. Is there a standard published? Do you set the world standard in “prophetingness”?????????????????????????
PS vote Obama, or Hillary if he can’t make the cut. Never vote a republican!!!!
August 5th, 2007 at 8:37 am
(Religious disagreements aside, I’m so with you on the “never republican” thing, Johnny.)
August 5th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Wow, you guys have been busy while I was away playing.
Johnny said:
A “Name Removal” requested person won’t be contacted if the procedure is done correctly!!!!! by Bishop & Stake President. If Natalie is back on the membership directory it just says to me that the first Bishop didn’t do the paperwork correctly and HQ rejected the request for incomplete (if it reached them at all).
Sorry, Johnny, but your information is incorrect. If the first bishop did not do it correctly, then WHY did I receive a letter informing me that the process was complete? That letter came from Church HQ. So you are wrong.
August 5th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Well then, did you actually see the membership directory with your name on it? because it also depends on whether your husband and kids where included in that first ‘name removal’.
If you got that letter from HQ then be assured that you have being removed and they found you/your address from somewhere else or some other way such as your husband on the list on his own or kids on there by themselves; I would have to check with your bishop about that to tell you what’s going on exactly. But trust me, if you got the standard letter from church offices you have being removed from the lists as a member and when the ward request your records nothing will ever be sent to them. (But the Ward clerk can informally list you if your husband is still a member or children are still listed but he will never get your records sent to him officially)
By the way would you be interested in returning to full church membership?????
August 5th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
My apologise; I just went back to read your first entry and you did always say that you had the standard letter saying that your name is removed and so on.
“already wrote the letter and had the official church letter to prove it”
Why not photocopy that and send it to this new bishop who obviously doesn’t know what happened before? because, trust me, HQ sends out that standard letter when its done correctly, so the local ward got your name some other way (not through the official membership records request because we don’t send them out after that letter goes out)?? And did that letter from HQ list your kids as well as you and your husband?? Or was it only addressed to your husband? (that’s important to figure out what’s happening here)
August 5th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
“I’ll chime in here. I was a ward clerk about 3 years ago. In a correlation meeting before church with the Bishop he read a letter from the First Presidency of the Church stating that any member who wants to remove their name from the records of the church should be allowed to without any further delay.
I am 110% positive the letter said this, the bishop read it to me and the other financial clerks, and that it was from the first presidency. Really, no joke, totally serious.”
Well, that settles it Natalie. Everything you have been experiencing since you wrote the letter has been imagined. Jason says so, he’s 110% correct.
August 5th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Huh? I am saying that it is church policy to let people resign without further fuss when they ask for it. I said in my post also that the bishop probably needs to read up on church policy. I think Natalie is being honest here, I ran into some people in her situation when I was a ward clerk. I don’t get how you can misconstrue my comments, they seemed pretty simple.
August 5th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
I love Harry Reid (off topic to a certain extent). I used to live in Nevada and voted for the man frequently. I tell you this…outside of Utah, until recently, very few people knew he was LDS. I never did and I lived in Nevada for 10 years. A perfect example of a Mormon who does the following:
1) Thinks for himself. (He’s a Democrat after all!)
2) Thinks other should do so (He doesn’t shove his religion down my throat)
3) Thinks maybe, just maybe, Utah is a LITTLE too red. Ha!
Natalie, these folks are somewhat unbelieveable.
August 5th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Jason, you’re the one who said anyone who wanted their names off the records can do so without delay. You saw the letter, and were 110% correct, seriously, no joke.
However, Natalie has been removed and put back on, not once, but twice, with pretend son, so I guess the letter is not 110% correct.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:51 am
Tracy, you’re missing the point completely.
This whole mess is an admistrative error -nothing more! It’s not the cult chasing Natalie or something. And Jason’s point is correct: church doesn’t want to make it hard for people to leave; its just that Bishops make mistakes and mess things, because their human.
Natalie: Just write another letter or send a copy of HQ letter to fix things up. Simple isn’t it???? Or repent and go back to church so you don’t have to send ANY letters, how’s that?????
But who exactly does HQ letter address: just you, or you and husband, or you,husband and each kid? 3 possilbe options there.
And Renee: you see that a temple recommend holder can be normal and think for himself etc, so what’s your beef with mormons?
August 6th, 2007 at 7:45 am
I am not trying to speak for Natalie, but speaking for myself, after reading comments left by mormons here, and after reading of Natalie’s experiences with rolls, bishops, stake president, whatnot…
I guess the beef would be that the mormon commenters in general (yes, there are exceptions) seem to want to make Natalie responsible for her difficulties getting her name (and those of her family) removed. She did what she was supposed to, now it’s the church’s responsibility to fix the mix up. But who’s the one who has to go to the trouble again? Natalie.
Gee, wonder why that bugs her.
And that’s not mentioning when a strange person knocks on her door and asks to see one of her young children without even introducing herself–because, hey, it’s church’s business! no need to ask the mother of a minor for anything! (check the archives for the full story, I don’t know how to link)
August 6th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Hey, no-one is saying that we want “to make Natalie responsible for her difficulties”; I’m sure I’ve being clear that the church does have a problem in this area.
We are only offerening a possible solution to this and what I think is the easiest way to do this, Like I said before, do nothing and nothing will get done and 10 years from now you will get another visit from some mormon wasting their time and yours.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Johnny,
And where is it you think the Mormons GOT my address, birth date, date of baptism, my kids birthdates, my husband’s birthdate, date of baptism, ETC? That information is NOT something you can get easily. The easy answer is IT CAME FROM CHURCH HQ. It’s not like they just PUT ME BACK ON without any information. It’s all there. They know when my birthday is, and they let me KNOW they know. The information CAME FROM CHURCH HQ. Pull your head out of the sand, and accept that this is fact.
And yes, I did receive a copy of the ward directory with my husband’s name, my name, and the kids names on it.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Strange that you of all people would get a copy of the ward directory. That’s contraband for you. Its clearly marked for “Bishopric and Ward Clerk” only. Who do YOU know on the inside???
But you didn’t answer the most important question: who was covered by the letter from HQ that said your name is removed? Just you or did it list your husband, and each child?
What you’re describing would be a first in this church: that HQ accepts your name removal and now magically it’s back on the directory; In more than 11 years now of dealing with church offices in salt lake on an almost daily basis this would be a first. For everyone else when HQ deletes your membership record from Membership General Directory (which means moving you to the ex members & excommunicated lists) that’s it, they just don’t put you back on. You need to request re-admitance by baptism etc etc………………..
I now honestly doubt that you are being completely truthful in all of this, especially the details.
Really you should begin by putting up a copy of that letter from HQ as a start for some credibility. (I can actually check from here, from my office pc, whether of not it’s legit.)
August 6th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Of course.
Reality doesn’t adjust to your vision, therefore, it can’t be reality.
And you wonder why people like me view your church as a cult more than anything else?
August 6th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Uh, Johnny? In Utah, the ward directory goes out to EVERY member. Maybe they do things different over there, where everyone isn’t a Mormon. But it’s handed out to everyone in the ward. It doesn’t include confidential material, but it has names, addresses, phone numbers, birthdates, etc.
The letter listed me and my husband. My children are not baptized. However, they were blessed, because I was trying to make my parents happy. Should have realized that marked them for life.
And I do not agree that this is a first. I bet it happens all the time. I didn’t request readmittance, baptism, or ANYTHING. Neither did my husband. Your protestations are falling on deaf ears here, Johnny, because I DID EVERYTHING I WAS SUPPOSED to, and I am BACK ON THE RECORDS. Don’t tell me it doesn’t happen. YOU are insulting me when you claim it doesn’t, because I AM NOT MAKING ANY OF THIS UP. I will have to dig up the letter, I guess, and scan it so you can see it. Why I should have to do that is beyond me.
You may THINK you understand how Church HQ does thing, but I’m guessing you are wrong. I am proof.
DO NOT accuse me of lying. What purpose would that serve? And how could you possibly check from YOUR Office PC, whether or not it’s legit? I’m a bit suspect of YOU myself, right now. Since you are intent in trying to disprove my story. I have a reputation and a career to protect. I have no reason to lie.
I would like to see YOUR credentials, Johnny. Something more than a name and an email. How about your temple recommend, scanned in and sent to me. That might help me to believe YOUR story.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
After Johnny challenged me, I got a little peeved, so I dug through important records and found the name removal letter. As soon as he shows me his temple recommend and credentials, I shall show him my letter.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Don’t show him anything Natalie, you have nothing to prove. Ole’ Johnny is pushing your buttons.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:26 am
Hey Tracy,
I’m not showing him ANYTHING until he shows me his…. LOL.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:57 am
“What’s wrong with translating out of a hat”……… Bwaaaaaaaaa ha, ha, ha. I’m laughing so hard I have tears. It’s not just the hat, it’s the entire history of Mormonism. I guess history is wrong (except the history you have been taught), DNA is wrong, and the rest of mankind are all wrong. Sounds like you have a brain….use it. So you were on the “outside” and now you are a Mormon. Of course you have to back up you chosen beliefs. Otherwise you would have to consider yourself foolish….and that’s not going to happen.
You throw out a bunch of names of “smart” Mormon’s, but you prove nothing. It’s all about believability and cult-like culture that you are in. Even smart people can be drawn in by mob-mentality and group pressure. I know a lot of really smart people who don’t have any common sense.
Like I said, it’s all about believability. Apparently, something was really lacking in your life that you could allow yourself to believe this story.
You wonder why people consider you a cult?
August 7th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Idahoan: Your statement that you don’t treat your own people, who don’t fit a mold, badly is bull. First of all, I’ve seen it firsthand. Secondly, Your own church historian on the recent PBS special stated that it is really difficult for certain groups within your organization. The pressure to get married and have large families is huge and he stated that it can be very difficult for those members that don’t/can’t fit this ideal.
I thought you believed everything that the church historian fed you?
August 8th, 2007 at 3:00 am
“In Utah, the ward directory goes out to EVERY member.” this would be different to us here. Doesn’t happen elsewhere around the world and I still doubt that it happens in Utah.
“THINK you understand how Church HQ does thing” & “And how could you possibly check from YOUR Office PC”
Actually my job! manager membership & statistics here in this Area, so I have access to all world wide membership records including confidential records (excommunicated, disfellowshiped) Email daily HQ …… never knew that membship directories go out to members in Utah. That doesn’t happen anywhere else -if it happens in Utah too- so yes, I’m still doutful. And I can see your record full, on GA with all its information (lots)
My recommend? too much there, I’d lose my job. And its you who made these claims so you should back them up, not me.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:15 am
Johnny, I don’t think you have a recommend, if you did, you would show it.
August 8th, 2007 at 7:56 am
John Boy, now you’re making my teeth itch.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Johnny…When we moved into a new ward and stake, as soon as they found us and even though we hadn’t been active in our old ward, practically the first think that happened was that the visiting teachers were on our doorstep thrusting not just a ward but a stake directory into our hands. So, this does happen, at least here in California.
August 9th, 2007 at 7:44 am
Tracy: No. I won’t because that could cause problems at work (local church area offices)
T.B making your teeth itch?/? you are strange!!!! And the name is Johnny not John nor John Boy.
August 9th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I thought the name was “fake email using coward”…
*cough*
March 15th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
so what…a copy of the temple recommend card is sacred now too?
good grief